S4.E23 - Flags, Fees, and a Maritime Holiday

🚢 By Land and By Sea Podcast – an attorney breaking down the week in supply chain
🎙️ Captain’s Log – “Flags, Fees, and a Maritime Holiday”
🗓️ May 23, 2025

Ahoy! This week, we’re covering three stories every maritime professional should know:

⚓ Section 301 Tariffs — USTR shifts focus to port equipment with proposed tariffs up to 100% on Chinese-made ship-to-shore cranes, chassis, and cargo handling gear. This signals a strategic pivot in U.S. trade policy.

🛳️ FMC Flags of Convenience Investigation — What was once a possible remedy under the chokepoints investigation is now the FMC’s main focus, probing how foreign-flag registries might undermine fair competition and security in U.S. trade lanes.

🎉 National Maritime Day — May 22 honors the U.S. Merchant Marine and civilian mariners. This year, the President ordered U.S. government vessels to dress ship in commemoration—a proud salute to the maritime workforce.

Ready to break it down? Tune in now: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/by-land-and-by-sea/id1631684087

Explore corporate trainings and webinars to bring this insight to your team at www.themaritimeprofessor.com

⚠️ This content is for educational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice.

#maritime #shipping #FMC #supplychain #maritimepolicy #ByLandAndBySea #TheMaritimeProfessor

Chapters

• 0:00 Intro to Maritime Week Highlights
• 2:12 Section 301 Tariffs on Maritime Equipment
• 19:34 FMC Investigation on Flags of Convenience
• 28:24 National Maritime Day Celebration
• 34:07 Closing Remarks and Resources

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:16

I got soul coming through, flying free. Skies are blue, all the waves are mixing room. I got On top. When you see me, good night. Whoa, I'm living bold. This is what it looks like On the tip of the world. Whoa, whoa.

Speaker 1: 0:58

This week, the maritime world gave us a little bit of everything, isn't that every week these days? A hearing on proposed tariffs that could reshape cargo handling equipment, a new Federal Maritime Commission investigation into international shipping flags, and a holiday that celebrates one of the hardest working sectors of the economy, the American maritime workforce. Hi, welcome back to, by Land and by Sea, an attorney breaking down the weakened supply chain presented by me, the Maritime Professor. I'm Lauren Began, former Maritime, former FMC International Affairs Attorney and founder of the Maritime Professor and Squall Strategies, and I'm your go-to resource for navigating the regulatory side of global ocean shipping and I'm your favorite maritime attorney. Right, I'm here to walk you through both ocean transport and surface transport topics in the wild world of supply chain. As always, the guidance here is general and for educational purposes only. It should not be construed to be legal advice and there is no attorney-client privilege created by this video or this podcast. If you need an attorney, contact an attorney. This is plain language maritime created so that anybody, not just lawyers or industry insiders, can understand what's happening in the world of shipping.

Speaker 1: 2:05

So let's dive into this week's episode because, as you know, ocean shipping moves the world. All right. Story number one. This is Section 301 Tariffs. We've been talking about the Section 301 Tariffs. Now there's a little bit of a new perspective. I've been kind of mentioning it for the past few episodes. I want to bring it to your attention again. But let's start with a quick refresher on where this is all, where this all started from and where it's kind of going. So back in April of 2024, so just over a year ago, that's when the United States Trade Representative that was under the Biden administration launched this Section 301 investigation into China's trade practices in the maritime sector. Like I said, this started under the Biden administration but has now continued and evolved under the Trump administration.

Speaker 1: 2:52

So you may recall from a previous episode that one of the earlier proposals included in the USTR proposal on this was a million dollars per voyage fee and that was going to be assessed on China-built vessels or China vessels. It wasn't quite clear if it was going to be in the fleet or just the ones that called the US. It was a significant proposal. The version caused quite a stir, as we know, right. As we know, there was significant pushback. There was a lot of messaging and media reports and industry really saying, look, this is too much, this is going to be significant. So it got everybody all riled up, which I think is kind of what it was used to do, and they had an in-person hearing. Remember, there wasn't any audio, there wasn't any video. Sal Mercogliano said he was going to do a puppet show on the transcript when it was released. Well, I'm still waiting, Sal, I haven't seen that puppet show. I'm still waiting. But yeah, so it was revised, right, so it was revised and it was a little bit more in line with the industry proposals. They kind of used that in-person hearing it seemed like as a brainstorming session. And then that turned into this new narrower application where the vessels had a cap on how many times they could be charged but still distinguished between China vessels and heightened fees associated with those and non-China vessels and operators and kind of reduced fees for non-China related vessels and operators. So it was a clear attempt to kind of refocus the proposal to better accommodate and really be in line with what the industry requires, while also still trying to impact and influence some of the behavior in the global ocean shipping world. Right, it still put that pressure on maritime, the Chinese maritime dominance, which is what the whole investigation is about, without over penalizing or trying attempting to not over penalize or penalize at all if they can help it. It looks like there's still going to be some impact to the supply chain, the US supply chain. But that was the attempt right, it was that it was going to try not to over penalize. So that's the refresher. Was the attempt right, it was that it was going to try not to over penalize. So that's the refresher.

Speaker 1: 5:06

Port fees, investment calls got a lot of attention. There was also in the revised, amended proposal a section that people aren't talking about as much and it's so important that you pay attention to this. It was a new proposal on tariffs on marine cargo handling equipment. So, according to the USTR's revised proposal, it said in accordance with the president's direction, ustr has considered whether to propose additional duties on certain ship-to-shore cranes and other cargo handling equipment. The report highlights vulnerabilities arising from over-reliance on Chinese production, such as over-reliance may create opportunities for China to manipulate the supply of critical components or materials, essentially US maritime infrastructure. So here's what was proposed under the support fees. They came out with the revised proposal. In that revised proposal is where this new proposal came in and they were asking for comments.

Speaker 1: 6:03

The proposal is up to 100% tariffs on ship-to-shore cranes, right, that are either manufactured, assembled or built with Chinese origin parts or produced anywhere by companies owned or influenced by Chinese nationals. So fine, right, 80 to 90% of ship-to-shore cranes are produced in China. 100% of the fixed arm ship-to-shore cranes, all of them, all of them are built in China, unfortunately, right. I mean, that's kind of what the intention of this whole initiative is about is trying to figure out ways of moving away from the Chinese dominance, and one of those things is there aren't other options for the fixed ship-to-shore cranes. So most ship-to-shore cranes can lift up, but in certain areas Port Everglades, boston you can't lift up because you're right next to an airport. Right, we have a maritime port right next to an airport and you can't lift up because you're going to get in the flight path and that's a big deal, right? So the ship-to-shore cranes that are fixed arms really is kind of the precipice for why this is so problematic. The other thing is right, for there's about 10 to 20 percent of ship-to-shore cranes that aren't produced by China. They're more expensive. So that's part of this and I think that's one thing that will be coming out from all of this discussion when we have the China tariffs from the first Trump administration and they had the whole list of things that were I remember, list one, list two, list three. One of the lists had ship-to-shore cranes on it and instead of actually getting an exception, it got taken off the list entirely the ship-to-shore cranes, especially the fixed ship-to-shore cranes. So here's kind of that moment again. But I think it's so important that the industry explains these things right, explains the necessity of other options here, because right now there are no other options for fixed-arm ship-to-shore cranes and very limited options for other types of ship-to-shore cranes. So just wanted to flag that because that's important.

Speaker 1: 8:06

But also in this proposal is 100% tariffs on certain cargo handling equipment of Chinese origin. So this is chassis, chassis parts, cargo boxes, right. The actual box itself. Look, this is a big deal for port operations, right? So China currently does dominate the global production. If you go back and look at the Federal Maritime Commission, former FMC Commissioner Carl Bensel actually did a report on chassis and cargo boxes and the prevalence of, or the dominance, I guess you could say of, china in the production of those goods. So and actually that report isn't being cross-referenced here much, but it probably should be. It was done 2020, right before his MTDI stuff. A really good report. It states some of the things that we know, right, that China is dominant, but it gives some numbers associated with it. It's a nice report that kind of encapsulates what is happening with the China dominance in chassis and containers, much like this USTR investigation.

Speaker 1: 9:13

But the point is they're turning their focus away from the vessel calls. They're probably still going to be refining some of the vessel calls, right, because there's some terms that, as if you follow Sal Mercogliano and what's going on with shipping he talks about some of that net tonnage is a little bit difficult to nail down the way that they're using it. I think there's probably going to still be some discussion around the port fees, but this is the part that's not getting as much attention these ship-to-shore cranes, these chassis, these cargo boxes. So this week, ustr and how do I know that? This week, ustr held a hearing on the new proposal. We had two days of hearings with people just outraged. The industry was so upset about the fees that they all showed up on that first one. This hearing this past Monday on the 19th, we didn't have that same outreach. We didn't have that same everybody in the industry showing up for this brainstorming session.

Speaker 1: 10:13

And again, no audio feed, no video feed. Right, I said last time it felt like USTR was creating an environment, so perhaps the participants had a little bit of cover to speak freely instead of perhaps grandstanding if they were being recorded and video feed was streamed out. And I think maybe that's what they were trying to do again here. 100% tariffs on ship to shore or chassis or containers is wild, perhaps necessary to get a point across, but I can't imagine where we would keep 100% tariffs on these things because they're so necessary to the supply chain moving. But look, same thing, right, this hearing on Monday no audio feed, no video feed, just the transcript, which has actually already been released. Um, but the transcripts are a little bit clunky to read. Look, it says they were trying. They weren't trying to hide the hearing by any means, but it says look, if you wanted to be a part of it, you had to be there. You had to be there so you could be part of the conversation, part of the brainstorming session, if you will.

Speaker 1: 11:15

Again, I kind of have two thoughts on this. One, the 100% tariffs. They have to come down right. There's no way the industry relies. It's the crux of the whole industry.

Speaker 1: 11:25

Chassis, like boxes, can't move without the wheels. And that's what the chassis are, right, those are the wheels that move the boxes around. And the industry was revolutionized by Malcolm McLean when he created the box and moved away from just piecemeal shipping and actually created these boxes, these 20-foot equivalent units or these 40-foot equivalent units, but the actual box itself. So we need that. And sure, yes, they're built in China. For the most part there are US manufacturers of boxes and I think that that might be an easy switch. But that's, I think, what USTR wanted to hear at this hearing. They still need to hear from us, right? They still need to hear from the industry. So if you know of some of the availability of cargo boxes being manufactured in the US, get that information in. If it's something that requires a little bit of a runway, get that information in. It's so necessary to have those conversations and get that information into the USTR so it can inform their decision.

Speaker 1: 12:26

I will note, though, the USTR. When they released their revised proposals, I think they leaned heavily on their advisory committee. So we've talked about this before. There's federal advisory committees. These are advisory committees, for the most part non-political. It's just industry leaders, stakeholders that come together, that kind of chew on different topics that the agency has questions on, sends it out to the advisory committee. They come up with, maybe, recommendations, general advice. We talk about the National Shipper Advisory Committee all the time, but that happens at the FMC. We've talked about MITSNAC before, the Maritime Transportation System National Advisory Committee that is advising the Department of Transportation through the Maritime Administration. That one's actually still on pause, so we're waiting to get more information on what's going on, because I think that MITSNAC could be a fantastic resource, especially if USTR is using their federal advisory committees to help inform this decision or their guidance. But again, it's important to have this engagement. I think the federal advisory committee will help to continue to provide feedback and guidance to USTR as they're going through their next round of revised proposals.

Speaker 1: 13:43

Right, they have to come down off of this 100% tariff, but we need the industry to show up too. Right, maybe you're not on these advisory committees, and if you're not, this is your opportunity and you don't want to miss it. My second thought on this perhaps the containers maybe can't be tariffed at all here. It was one of the comments that came in and I thought that it was a really interesting one, and probably one that might sidetrack what they're trying to do, but also one that might help inform a better way of trying to impact and influence this behavioral change of. Let's get away from China being the dominant manufacturer of containers and chassis and bring it back to the US.

Speaker 1: 14:25

But look, containers are not an import, right, they're part of the transition of the goods. They don't stay, if anybody listening. Still, if you have fresh milk delivered in the glass bottles, you know we're lucky to have that as an option here where we live. But the glass milk bottles actually on the side of it says we, we came to visit, not to stay. That's essentially the same thing, right, they're the reusable packaging material that brings the goods to you. But the actual box Came to visit, not to stay, right? So it's not an import. It comes in, it brings the goods, it becomes an empty and then hopefully gets filled with an export and then becomes an export commodity that goes on its merry way into the supply chain ecosystem. So this was last Monday.

Speaker 1: 15:17

I think that there's like a seven-day finalized comment period I can imagine. Right, they're not going to be super hard-lined on, we're going to turn away comments that aren't submitted within these periods, but to be guaranteed having your comments included and considered. Watch all of these deadlines. I know we're drinking from fire hoses here. There's a lot going on. Tariffs are changing quickly, but this is important to stay engaged. When the maritime industry is asking you for feedback, when USTR, when the federal government, is asking the maritime industry for feedback, we have to continue to stay engaged. We have to continue to let our voices be known. If 100% tariffs would impact your bottom line, you got to let them know. You have to let them know that that's going to happen. So, look, I think the other thing is we're already probably starting to see some industry realignment based on the revision of the fees proposal.

Speaker 1: 16:11

What I think that we're going to continue to see happening and I think that there's probably an opportunity right now that I think is being taken advantage of is China-built vessels are being rotated out of the US trade lanes. Right, you have these global ocean shipping companies and they have Korean built vessels and other non-Chinese built vessels, and then they certainly have Chinese built vessels. I mean American companies do as well. There's waivers on the American companies, right? So if you have vessels even if they're Chinese builtbuilt vessels in the rotation that's what the new proposal said is that, well, if it's an American company, there's a waiver opportunity?

Speaker 1: 16:48

The globalization shipping companies that are non-Chinese operators are trying to find ways of limiting their exposure to these fees, and I think one of those ways is by moving the China vessels out, moving non-Chinese vessels into these US trade lanes. I also think that perhaps there might be something to these alliances and where there are Chinese related companies as part of the alliances, perhaps there might be a strategy there to have more of your goods go on the company that isn't Chinese connected. I don't know. We're going to see. I'm going to continue to watch this and see how perhaps some of these trade lanes are moving with some of the vessels that they're putting in. We might even see reflagging to US-based entities, right, like I said. So Maersk has the US version of the company. I guess subsidiary is Maersk Line Limited, so perhaps we're going to be seeing an APL similarly right. So I think we might be seeing some of these vessels perhaps reflagged into US flagged entities under a US company to try to find waiver opportunities for some of these fees company to try to find waiver opportunities for some of these fees.

Speaker 1: 18:04

It takes a while to reflag right, that's not going to happen right off the bat. But since we have maybe some downed imports right now a slowdown that we keep hearing about from port officials maybe there's a silver lining to all of that. Less cargo moving means that perhaps the vessels can be repositioned with lesser impacts. So that's why I think right now is maybe when that's happening right. I think they're probably being strategic with their fleet. They're kind of moving things around. We'll see. We'll see what shows up. We'll see what vessels start to come into the trade lanes as the imports are starting to pick up is what I'm hearing a little bit. But look, if you work in supply chain right terminal operations, infrastructure planning, port procurement, marine handling equipment and I mean really supply chain right this is something that you got to pay attention to. We got to stay sharp on this. So keep following the USTR stuff Just because the port call and the port fees has started to take better shape doesn't mean that there aren't other things that are being looked at.

Speaker 1: 19:01

That would still impact you significantly. And the thing is these costs probably will get passed along. The port fees it makes sense that they would get passed along, right, because they're not necessarily the fault of the carrier unless they're a Chinese company, right, but they're not necessarily the fault of the carrier. They also have Chinese ships, just like American companies have Chinese ships, right, so that's part of it is that would probably get passed on. So they're trying to limit their exposure, I think. Right, I can imagine so that way they don't have as many fees to pass on, right, because it's not a pleasant experience having those fees passed on. But also cargo handling equipment, right, ship-to-shore cranes if they cost more money coming in, that's more expensive for the port itself and so they're going to have to recoup those costs some way. Cargo boxes, right, or the chassis providers there's all of these things if they cost more to come in, are going to cost more to the end consumer because those fees have to be passed along. It's going to be very difficult to just absorb them, especially if it's 100 percent tariff right On multi-million, I mean tens of millions of dollars for a ship to short grain. So all right.

Speaker 1: 20:17

Story number two let's keep moving on, but USTR, keep it in mind. Story number two the Federal Maritime Commission. Again, they're so active. Another investigation out of the Federal Maritime Commission, this time on flags of convenience. I can imagine they're still going to be accepting late filed comments. They tend to. They are late filed comments at this point though, so if you have comments in the matter, see what you can do. Try to reach out. Secretary at FMCgov is probably where I would send it. That's kind of where they receive the Office of the Secretary. I don't know if the comments submission is still open on the Maritime Chokepoints, but all of that to say OK, if you missed out on the maritime choke points, you might still have an opportunity.

Speaker 1: 21:08

But we're shifting gears now here to flags of convenience. This was kind of part of the maritime choke points because it was kind of part of the remedies that the FMC could undertake right Turning away flagged vessels of a certain country, namely Panama, in that situation, or any country really. But it was most notable for Panama because if there's to be found unfavorable shipping conditions by the country of Panama, one of the remedies available to the FMC in that situation is turning away from vessels with Panamanian flag vessels calling at any US ports. Yes, yes, the FMC could do that and they still can. They could turn away, restrict port access to Panamanian flag vessels if they find unfavorable shipping conditions have been undertaken by the country of Panama. Not saying it's going to happen, but it could. It is very much on the table and that was the maritime choke points.

Speaker 1: 22:03

Now they're looking at flags of convenience. Generally. They are looking at flags of convenience as a category that needs to be reviewed for unfavorable shipping conditions or really unfair shipping conditions. So let's break this down a little bit. What is a flag of convenience? Well, it's really kind of when a ship is registered in a different country than one where its true ownership is based. So, and the name flags convenience, it kind of creates a convenience for that not based in that country ownership. So usually what will happen is carriers choose these registries for cost savings, perhaps lighter labor rules sometimes significantly lighter labor rules, regulatory flexibility and generally fewer compliance issues.

Speaker 1: 22:50

Some of the most popular flag states Panama, liberia, marshall Islands but there's a whole slew of flags of convenience and I'm not saying that these three that I mentioned. They just kind of happen to be the biggest ones. You're probably most familiar with those, and we've talked about the Panamanian flags of convenience, but they represent 18 to 20 percent of the world's flag fleet, just Panamanian flagged vessels alone. But flags of convenience also might have a darker side, and that's what this FMC investigation is kind of looking at. Is there something that's going against overall favorable shipping conditions? Right, this unfavorable shipping conditions assessment? So from a business perspective, flags of convenience can be a savvy way to trim expenses, but from a regulatory or national interest perspective, it can raise some serious questions, and some of those questions that the FMC is kind of looking at here is really who's in charge if something goes wrong at sea? What safety, labor or environmental standards are actually being enforced? And, especially in times of geopolitical tension, can the US really rely on or hold accountable a vessel that isn't tied to any meaningful US oversight? And again, right, the FMC is reviewing this flag neutral, but from the perspective for the benefit of the US importer, exporter and consumer. So, while the FMC generally is flag neutral, they are still obviously a regulatory agency of the US with US interests in mind, and so that's what the FMC really wants to find out here.

Speaker 1: 24:17

Right, this new investigation is asking whether widespread use of these flags in US trade lanes right for cargo that's touching US trade lanes and being served either imports or exports, or somehow just getting to the consumers. Is it creating unfair competition for perhaps US flagged or other more regulated vessels? Is there unfavorable shipping conditions happening by flagged to convenience? Are there introductions of increased risks, either from a security standpoint or supply chain reliability one, or from a labor standards problematic standpoint. And also they're going to be looking at it from, obviously, the perspective of is it undermining the goals of the Shipping Act? Right, Because the problematic standpoint. And also they're going to be looking at it from, obviously, the perspective of is it undermining the goals of the Shipping Act? Right, because the Shipping Act is the marquee statutory authority that the FMC enjoys, given to it by Congress. But, as we've talked before, there's these two other statutory authorities that the FMC has the Foreign Shipping Practices Act and the Section 19 Authority of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. That's where the FMC gets these authorities to review unfavorable or unfair shipping conditions.

Speaker 1: 25:26

So the choke points investigation highlighted how foreign control of infrastructure can expose US trade or perhaps if there's unnecessary impediments in certain choke points around the world. That's why there were seven different areas looked at. This wasn't just a Panamanian investigation, it was seven different areas. This flags of investigation, flags of convenience investigation, is kind of doing the same thing, but now more at the vessel level, but also kind of an international, kind of a country level, right, because it's flagged the convenience from a certain country where the flag of convenience is coming from. So why does this matter? It's not just a paperwork issue, right. It's a power and policy issue.

Speaker 1: 26:06

If a ship is flagged in a country that doesn't enforce basic safety, labor or competition rules, I mean, can it really be trusted to operate in our trade lanes? And that's kind of what the FMC is looking at here Can it be trusted? Are there security implications? Are there favorability to shipping conditions? Is there a competition side of it? Really? And it's probably less about the safety and labor and more about the competition rules, because right at the heart, the FMC is a competition authority and I think that's what they're looking at. Right, the FMC is putting the debate squarely on the table is because of those considerations.

Speaker 1: 26:44

Should a flag of convenience be allowed to operate in US trade lanes, we could see a whole slew of things right. As we've talked about before, foreign Shipping Practices Act and Section 1930 has a catch-all where contracts or agreements filed at the FMC right and those start to hit at alliances or those start to hit at service contract generally. But now this could be just something that the FMC could take a lot larger of a broad stroke to. So we'll see. Look, the FMC has been looking under the hood or I suppose they're down in the engine room of global ocean shipping recently and asking look, is this still working for US interests? And I think that that's something that's an important question. The FMC is situated with statutory authority to ask those questions. They've historically taken a light approach to this, but now they're doing it. They're looking Is this still working for US interests or are there unfavorable shipping conditions for the competition of the global ocean shipping? But as it relates to the US, I'll keep watching. You got 90 days 90 days to submit comments on this one. Don't let this one pass. The maritime choke points did not get as much attention as it should have in terms of comments being filed. This one is a big deal. I'm going to keep talking about this one Flag convenience and the FMC reviewing it. All right.

Speaker 1: 28:24

Story number three so yesterday, thursday May 27th, was National Maritime Day. Happy National Maritime Day everybody. If I'm a little hoarse or a little tired today, I just flew back this morning from Washington DC. I was down there. What an exciting day. A full lineup of National Maritime Day celebrations. It's just a fantastic way to celebrate this wonderful holiday.

Speaker 1: 28:51

It was established by Congress in 1933 to honor the US Merchant Marine and its vital role in commerce and national defense. The date commemorates the historic 1819 voyage of the SS Savannah, the first steam shipped across the Atlantic Ocean. And just yesterday, in a 2025 presidential proclamation, president Trump highlighted the critical contributions of merchant mariners. The critical contributions of merchant mariners, stated in that proclamation. He said merchant mariners play a vital role in our national defense, standing ready to support military operations whenever they are needed. He also emphasized their role in supporting trade and connecting American producers to global markets, saying in the proclamation, they operate the vessels that transport goods, energy and raw material to and from our shores, supporting global trade and connecting United States producers with international markets. The proclamation also directed all vessels of the United States government in appropriate waters are authorized and requested to dress ship in commemoration of National Maritime Day, of National Maritime Day, so, in other words, the US government vessels flew full dress flags from stern to stern, which is a proud vessel salute to the maritime industry and its workers.

Speaker 1: 30:02

Look, national Maritime Day is more than a tradition. It's a reminder that the US maritime workforce and fleet are critical to national security, economic strength and global supply chain resilience. And, honestly, for the first time since I've been in global supply chain and maritime issues since, oh my God, I'm going to say 20 years now, which isn't that long, but how can that be? I'm only 25. No, that's not true, but I have been around for 20 years now in the maritime industry. I can say that saying workforce and fleet are critical to national security, economic strength and global supply chain resilience is actually happening and it feels like it's getting that recognition as a top five issue for this administration and all of the buzz.

Speaker 1: 30:47

You know, yesterday we had National Maritime Day over at Maritime Administration at the Department of Transportation Wonderful celebration. There was a roundtable that was happening right after the ceremony Fantastic opportunity for the industry to come together to really think of new ways, of how do we revitalize this in real industry-specific, industry-led ways. But I will say I'll take a moment. These are conversations we've been having for years. Right, we've been having conversations for years. That was one of the takeaways that I heard from a few of the participants was I'm happy we're having these conversations, but it was almost like this, haven't we said this before? So if anybody's listening, from anybody who is working on these issues directly, take a look at some of the messaging, the reports, the Federal Advisory Committee recommendations that are out there, line with all of the things that have been happening. In fact, the last charter actually found quite a few of the recommendations from MidSnack specifically found their way into, or at least the themes of them found their way into, the SHIPS Act and I don't think that's an accident, I think that was just good ideas, or good ideas. So there's a whole slew of information out there, certainly the stakeholders of the industry, but it's actually commemorated and written down in certain places, almost a book of recommendations that are industry vetted, that are industry reviewed, that are probably a great source. So it was still such an exciting day yesterday. That roundtable was fantastic. There were some new ideas based on some of the proposals and movement that's already happened in the past. Gosh, only two months really Three months maybe, but only one month since the April 9th, or just over one and a half months since the April 9th Maritime Proclamation Executive Order came out. So lots of great things happening in the US right now as it relates to maritime, maritime workforce.

Speaker 1: 32:54

Again, it's a three-legged stool. Here We've been focusing on shipbuilding. That's fantastic. We're starting, it seems like, especially with Maritime Day, to focus a little bit on mariners and or refocus on mariners retention attraction. How do we make sure that we have mariners to fill those ships? But the thing that we can't forget is how do we make sure we have cargo to fill those ships? But the thing that we can't forget is how do we make sure we have cargo to fill those ships, because without cargo, that stool falls over. Every time it's a three-legged stool.

Speaker 1: 33:21

It always has been, and that's kind of been the theme that anybody who's been talking in the maritime industry for the past forever, but recent history is talking about. Right, you need the ships, you need the mariners and you need the cargo, and so let's go on those themes. Right, you need the ships, you need the mariners and you need the cargo, and so let's go on those themes right. Let's keep it going. So, maritime Day happy Maritime Day, everybody. I hope that you were able to celebrate. I know the Propeller Club across the country has quite a few activities. If you're up in the Boston area, we still have a Maritime Day celebration coming up next week. I encourage you to participate in these events because they really are a fantastic way to celebrate the industry that we're all in. If you missed the observance yesterday, make sure to take a moment today to recognize the mariners and ships that keep this country and the world moving All right. So this week we unpacked some big moves shaping the maritime landscape right. We had the USTR, evolving Section 301 tariffs, shifting the focus from the vessel fees to the port equipment, the FMC's focus, investigation into flags of convenience, spotlighting critical questions about accountability, competition and security in the trade lanes, and the recent observation of National Maritime Day.

Speaker 1: 34:26

If you liked this episode, be sure to follow, subscribe and leave a review. Want to go deeper on these topics or bring this kind of insight to your team? Visit themaritimeprofessorcom or explore corporate trainings, tailored briefings and on-demand webinars, all designed to make complex maritime regulations practical and easy to understand. If your organization needs help navigating this legal or strategic side of ocean shipping regulations head over to Squall Strategies. That's where I provide consulting services, regulatory guidance and policy support for clients working directly with the FMC and across the global supply chain. As always, this podcast is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you need an attorney, contact an attorney. So until next time, I'm Lauren Began, the Maritime Professor, and you've just listened to my Land Advice Seat. See you next time.